|
Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
'The Mayor of London told the Association of London Government this week that the Tramlink extension will "definitely go ahead".' See http://iccroydon.icnetwork.co.uk/new...name_page.html -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:53:02 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote: 'The Mayor of London told the Association of London Government this week that the Tramlink extension will "definitely go ahead".' See http://iccroydon.icnetwork.co.uk/new...name_page.html Worth a read just to get a feel of newspaper hype. What tube services are at Crystal Palace anyway? I suppose reference is being made to the East London Project which will bring Underground trains to Crystal Palace [LL] sometime in the summer of 2010. [http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/l...map_large.jpg]. The routing of this Tramlink extension is all off-street and displaces/replaces some heavy route services in its provision, but the logical destination of Crystal Palace Parade up the steeply graded peak of Anerley Hill is a severe challenge to which no workable solutions have ever been produced. There is also the sticky point of purchasing more trams and slotting the new route into the existing system; that might put the kybosh on the whole idea. Still, this extension is very likely to come to fruition, using a terminal location at some low level location at Crystal Palace. It would probably be brought into revenue earning service long before travellers can use the Centrale / Tamworth Road Stop. For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric traction, the best way would be by the 654. David Bradley |
Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
--- "David Bradley" wrote: The routing of this Tramlink extension is all off-street and displaces/replaces some heavy route services in its provision, but the logical destination of Crystal Palace Parade up the steeply graded peak of Anerley Hill is a severe challenge to which no workable solutions have ever been produced. There is also the sticky point of purchasing more trams and slotting the new route into the existing system; that might put the kybosh on the whole idea. I live near Crystal Palace, but I'm not happy about the extension. For a start, we've already got good NR services to Croydon. (Well, evening and Sunday services could be better, but the best way to fix that is by running more trains in evenings and Sundays -- not by building a whole new tram line!) As for services to Beckenham Jn, well the existing trains are pretty much empty, proving there's not much demand for it. However, the existing Beckenham services do provide us with extra trains to central London, a destination that's in great demand. What will happen to these London services once Tramlink has taken over the Palace-Beckenham line completely? Will they just be cut altogether, leaving people with a reduced train service to London? There's something wrong with a plan to increase services on routes that people don't use, and reduce them on lines which they do! And, as David pointed out, there's the question of how trams are going to get to Crystal Palace. Presumably, they'll be taking over all the existing line from Beckenham at least as far as the 'Bromley junction' where it joins the NR line from Croydon and Norwood Jn. And then what..? Single track on both tram and train into Cyrstal Palace? That's going to reduce the number of paths for NR trains on the line. "But, Solar," I hear you cry, "it doesn't matter if the number of trains from Crystal Palace to Croydon are reduced. You'll have the trams instead. Well, yes. But that's not going to be much consolation to passengers from Gipsy Hill and West Norwood, who could find ourselves with a reduced Croydon service while those lucky people living just the other side of the hill benefit from the improved service offred by the trams. And don't forget, fewer London-Palace-Croydon trains means fewer trains connecting Palace to London --the service with the greatest demand! If new serivces could be created without damaging existing ones, I'd be all for it. But this is just meddling for its own sake, and I can't see how it's a good idea. For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric traction, the best way would be by the 654. Eh? Is that a new battery-powered bus route or something? |
Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:28:53 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote: "David Bradley" wrote: For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric traction, the best way would be by the 654. Eh? Is that a new battery-powered bus route or something? it was a Trolleybus - now bus 154. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
... I live near Crystal Palace, but I'm not happy about the extension. For a start, we've already got good NR services to Croydon. (Well, evening and Sunday services could be better, but the best way to fix that is by running more trains in evenings and Sundays -- not by building a whole new tram line!) As for services to Beckenham Jn, well the existing trains are pretty much empty, proving there's not much demand for it. However, the existing Beckenham services do provide us with extra trains to central London, a destination that's in great demand. What will happen to these London services once Tramlink has taken over the Palace-Beckenham line completely? Will they just be cut altogether, leaving people with a reduced train service to London? There's something wrong with a plan to increase services on routes that people don't use, and reduce them on lines which they do! ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal Palace extension was that it allows the Beckhenham Junction-Crystal Palace service to remain, while trains to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere more useful - Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London should remain the same, but the frequency to Croydon would increase. Jonn |
Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
--- "Jonn Elledge" wrote: ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal Palace extension was that it allows the Beckhenham Junction-Crystal Palace service to remain, while trains to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere more useful - Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London should remain the same, but the frequency to Croydon would increase. Well, as long as that happens, it'll be alright. Any evidence that the rail companies will stick to their side of the agreement..? |
Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
--- "Paul Corfield" wrote: wrote: "David Bradley" wrote: For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric traction, the best way would be by the 654. Eh? Is that a new battery-powered bus route or something? it was a Trolleybus - now bus 154. Ok, thanks. ITYM bus 157. Perhaps that's what the trams should do. Drop down to street level at Croydon Road and follow that route to Crystal Palace. (Maybe even taking a short cut through the park to avoid road congestion at the Robin Hood.) The big advantage of this route is that it provides an interchange at Anerley station. The big disadvantage is lots of on-street running -- and also, lots of on-street disruption while it's being built. |
Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
... ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal Palace extension was that it allows the Beckhenham Junction-Crystal Palace service to remain, while trains to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere more useful - Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London should remain the same, but the frequency to Croydon would increase. The main point is that the Tramlink Beckenham single track section is a PITA and Tramlink wants to take over the other track. Running trams between Beckenham and CP is something they just have to do in order to get their hands on the track. If the existing trains were that empty, the service would just be closed, and Tramlink would get the second track they want more cheaply. But if they are fairly empty (which matches my limited experience of that branch), converting it to a tram should give cheaper running costs than leaving it as is. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
In article , David Bradley wrote:
For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric traction, the best way would be by the 654. Ensuring that only vehicles fitted with run-back brakes are rostered. -- Jock Mackirdy Bedford |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk